The High Court rejected an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner, a recorded owner of land used for large-scale poppy cultivation under the NDPS Act, was denied bail due to a four-year period of absconding and non-cooperation with the investigation.
The prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
09.12.2020 tkm sl no. 65
C.R.M. 8582 of 2020
(via video conference)
In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Sadar Excise Malda Case no. S.I’s S.L no. 94/2015-16 dt 19.1.2016 under sections 18(c)/8(b) of the NDPS Act
And
In Re : Biswajit Mandal …… petitioner
Mr. A K Bhowmick …… for the petitioner Mr. P K Dutta Mr. S Bardhan Mr. S Bhakat …… for the State
Petitioner is the recorded owner of the land in which poppy
cultivation on large scale have been undertaken.
In view of the aforesaid fact and as the petitioner had absconded for four years and did not co-operate with investigation,
we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner who is a recorded poppy cultivation owner but has been absconding for four years.
Whether the petitioner's failure to cooperate with the investigation warrants rejection of the bail application.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Biswajit Mandal
State
Suvra Ghosh
Joymalya Bagchi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
